Abstract There is a general consensus that analyzing nutrients in feed as best as possible will lead to better animal performance and reduced costs for the farmer. Precision is defined by how close repeated nutrient measurements in the same feed agree with each other. From an economical point of view, improving the precision of all nutrients in the feed as best as possible is sub optimal, as analyzing nutrients in feed takes time and increases costs. We show that imprecision of nutrients in feed can be linked to over-eating in growing and finishing pigs, hence reduced profit for the farmer. Therefore, we solved a min-max problem, where we minimize the cost and time analyzing nutrients in feed, while maximizing the profit for the farmer to find the best economical precision. We propose a mathematical model and use the NRC Swine requirement system model [NRC (2012)] to connect the daily feed intake of the animal with the precision of the nutrients in the feed. The model assumes that the pig will eat ad libitum for maximal potential and will not be hindered by physical or environmental restrictions. It is assumed that the animal will eat an amount of feed sufficient to attain its potential growth [Emmans (1981)]. The (desired) feed intake is calculated from the requirements of the pig and estimated energy and amino acids in the feed. The true feed intake will be different from the estimated feed intake because there are precision errors in the estimation of the energy and amino acids in the feed. As we cannot know the true nutrient values and true feed intake, we must consider the estimated nutrient values and feed intake as stochastic variables. Using Monte-Carlo we simulate the stochastic feed intake and calculate the average difference between the expected and true feed intake. The Monte-Carlo simulations demonstrated two interesting results. Firstly, growing and finishing swine will eat, on average, more than predicted, when precision is above 1.5% (P < 0.03). Secondly, an increase in precision in nutrient composition of diets yields a decreased excessive feed intake, but shows diminishing returns when precision becomes small. We estimate that economically the best precision of nutrient estimations in the feed is below 2%. In the case of 2% precision, pigs will, on average, eat between 0.065 kg and 0.497 kg more than expected (P = 0.05), while the compound feed producer will not, on average, add more nutrition in the feed than needed (P = 0.01).